EDITORIAL: Stop Sacramento from passing dubious last-minute bills

Good law does not grow from secrecy and speed. The Legislatureâs habit of pushing hastily amended bills with little time for scrutiny only enables special-interest deals, political favors and flawed policy. Legislators should instead back a bipartisan effort to end the practice of passing last-minute bills without real analysis.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, and Sens. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, want to change that reckless approach to legislating. Their proposals, ACA 4 in the Assembly and SCA 10 in the Senate, are constitutional amendments that would require bills to be in print for 72 hours before a vote. The only exception would be for legislation addressing public emergencies. Olsen and DeSaulnier held a press conference on Monday seeking support for the proposals.

The wisdom of that good government reform should be obvious, but success is far from certain. Previous efforts to end fast-breaking bills have met with little success in the Legislature. And a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, as well as approval from voters.

There is no real defense, however, for passing bills in a rush without debate. DeSaulnier on Monday noted that legislators often face votes on end-of-session bills that they have not had time to read. Blind votes on unread legislation hardly offer a responsible approach to governance. Such last-minute bills are also fertile ground for dubious ideas that could not survive the public spotlight.

And if legislators are in the dark, how can the average Californian ever hope to know what government is doing? Yet such public scrutiny is key to holding government accountable. Transparency safeguards the public interest, while deterring favoritism, insider agendas, flawed ideas and corruption.

California has ample evidence of the mischief caused by last-minute, late-night votes. A hurried 2009 budget deal created a dubious tax break that favored out-of-state corporations and gave California businesses an incentive to expand outside the state. Voters eventually repealed that break last year. A hasty deal in 2011 skirted environmental rules to benefit a wealthy developerâs NFL stadium proposal. A rushed, barely discussed budget bill in 2011 also deprived Riverside Countyâs four newest cities of startup money they had counted on when incorporating.

Opponents of the proposed changes â" including some legislators â" argue that the three-day requirement before a vote gives special interests more time to undermine legislation. But that contention is absurd: Special interests do far better when legislators circumvent thorough scrutiny. And if public exposure is enough to kill a bill, that might be a sign the proposal was a bad idea. Nor does the need to meet legislative deadlines justify hurried, last-minute bills. Procrastination does not excuse shoddy procedure.

Stealth and convenience are no substitute for thoughtful deliberation and open government. Bypassing legislative safeguards may serve political goals â" but it certainly does not further any public interest.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@pe.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

Join the conversation

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to allow Freedom Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Freedom publications without any notification or payment.